BHAGWANDAS PRABHAKAR KAMBLE vs M/o Defence on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Umesh Gajankush, Member (J):

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the selection of the year 1995, 2004, for the post of regularization of Casual labour in Group D. such as Call letters, Interview (DPC) proceeding, seniority list of Casual labourers etc. whether reckoning of 240 days is done after counting Sundays, holidays etc.

(b) Quash and set aside the orders dated 13.10.2015, (A-1) passed by embarkation Head quarters, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 1, and it’s earlier orders 10.11.2008 (A-18) passed by Addl. Directorate General Movement New Delhi, which is in merger with orders dt. 13.10.15 (A- 1).

(c) Declare that applicant is eligible after taking into account the weekly off, Sundays, Holidays and National Holidays for reckoning 240 days.

(d) That this Honourable Tribunal may kindly order the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant in the in the post of Group D, from the date of his immediate junior was regularized.

(e) Declare that the respondents have failed to appreciate the case of the applicant with proper perspective of the orders and spirit of the various orders passed by Government of India.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

And declare that the impugned orders is Arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and void.

(f) Cost of this O.A. be saddled on the respondents.

(g) Any other relief that this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit to be granted in favour of the applicant.

2. This is the 3rd round of litigation at the instance of the applicant, therefore in the present round of litigation principally the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure A/1) is required to be considered which is passed by the respondents in terms of earlier order dated 04th of August 2015 in OA No. 338/2012 and in the aforesaid order, this Tribunal has recorded detailed facts/stand of the applicant as well as the respondents. Therefore, few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present original application is recorded in the succeeding paragraphs.

2.1. It is stated that the applicant has started working as Casual Labourer in the office of Commandant Embarkation Headquarters, Mumbai since April 1988. From the facts and speaking order by way of impugned by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

order dated 06.03.2012, it appears that he has worked for the following no. of days as Casual Labourer from the year 1988 to 2006; Date of birth Education Qualification Date of Initial Appt. (Year & Month) Age at the time of Initial Appt. (Year & Month) No. of Days service Rendered in Each year 25.01.1969 8th Std. 27.04.1988 19 yrs. 3 months Year No. of days

2.2 It is stated that in view of his engagement as a Casual Labourer for different no. of days during these years, he is entitled to be regularized. The applicant claims that he was sincere and dedicated worker and has received many certificates of merits from various officers appreciating his dedication and devotion to duty. It is his Digitally signed by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

contention that he was deliberately given artificial breaks in service which amount to unfair labour practice. He also stated that because he ventilated his grievance before Commandant Embarkation Department on 30.01.1996, he was subsequently subjected harassment.

2.3 It is submitted that the applicant had submitted representations for regularization on 17.02.2007, 03.05.2007 and 24.07.2012. On 28.06.2007, the Commandant Embarkation Headquarters had written to the ADGM, DGOI, GS Branch with a copy marked to the applicant that due to implementation of ban on fresh recruitment since

and existing rules and regularization on the subject, it is not possible to absorb daily wage a daily wage labourer as permanent labourer. The applicant had also submitted a petition to the Hon'ble President of India on 28.11.2007 praying for regularization in his job.

2.4 It is submitted that this is the 3rd round of litigation in this Tribunal. The applicant had earlier filed OA Digitally signed by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

75/2009 and this Tribunal in its order dated 02.06.2011 had passed the following orders; “ …………………………

7. In view of the above said discussion of fact and law, the present OA is allowed with direction to the Respondents to take expeditious steps to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as per the General instructions by ignoring the sponsorship from Employment Exchange as well as giving relaxation in age, if so required, inconsonance with the provisions of the O.M. dated 08.04.1991.

8. Lastly, we may also note that a number of casual labourers have been regularized by the Respondents themselves from January, 1995 onwards. List of such similarly situated 29 casual labourers has been annexed by the parties at page 45 of the paper book as Annexure A-17. In view of this also the case of the applicant is required to be considered for regularization in appropriate Group 'D' post by the Respondents from the date when his immediate junior was so considered and regularized. This exercise shall be done by the Respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from 18.08.2007 only including reinstatement etc. but on notional basis in case the applicant is found fit for regularization as per rules after such consideration. On his eventual reinstatement, the applicant shall not claim any back-wages or financial benefits for the intervening period.”

2.5 It is further submitted that the Respondents had filed Writ Petition No.2345/2011 before the Hon'ble High by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

Court of Bombay challenging the order of this Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its order dated 09.02.2012 had passed the following judgment; “1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the CAT directing consideration of the respondent for regularization in accordance with the policy of the petitioner itself.

2. The submission of the learned counsel is that, the case of the respondent was considered in the year 1994 and he was not found fit for regularization. It is stated in the reply of the petitioner itself that in the year 1994 the respondent had not completed 240 days of work in a year, but it appears from the record that, thereafter the respondent continued as casual labour and all that the tribunal has done by the impugned order is, it directed the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent for regularization in accordance with the policy of the petitioner itself. It is therefore, obvious that after considering the case of the respondent for regularization, in case the petitioner finds that he does not fulfill the norms and therefore cannot be regularized, the petitioner is free to make that order. In our opinion, this petition has been unnecessarily filed.

3. Petition is rejected.”

2.6 Thereafter, during the pendency of Contempt Petition No. 69/2011, respondents have passed order dated 10.04.2012, which was challenged by the applicant by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

by filing OA No. 338/2012, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2015.

2.7 In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondents have passed impugned order dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure-A-1) and therefore, the present OA has been submitted. Therefore, on the basis of facts and grounds mentioned in the original application, the applicant has prayed for the reliefs as mentioned in para 8 of the OA.

3. After issuance of notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed in pursuance to order dated 04th August 2015 passed in OA No. 338/2012, in which taking note of factual position of the services/engagement of the applicant, it has been categorically recorded that applicant was not meeting the eligibility requirement of 240 days of service in two consecutive years, therefore the claim of the applicant was rejected for regularization. It is submitted that therefore, by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

the applicant is not entitled for any reliefs and the OA is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant while inviting attention to earlier proceedings filed at the instance of the applicant and most specifically the order dated 04th August 2015 submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary. It is submitted that similarly situated employees have been given the benefit of regularization, whereas the applicant was excluded which is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is further submitted that while calculating the days of the applicant worked as causal laborer, the directions issued by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation was not complied with in proper perspective. He has drawn our attention to the chart on which the respondents have relied i.e. Annexure R/4 coupled with the fact that in original application paragraph no. 5.8, the applicant has specifically counted the days of Sundays and other by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

holidays in each year for computing the total number of days, however while filing reply to the said paragraph, vague statement has been made by the respondents. In fact the aforesaid factual position is not disputed in reply. Even otherwise looking to Annexure R/4, it is clear that in the year 1991 the applicant has worked for 253 days and for preceding 3 years, if the days shown in paragraph 4.5 of the OA is calculated, then the same would come to more than 240 days and therefore the rejection of the claim of the applicant is on hyper-technical basis and therefore impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the official respondents on the basis of reply and sur-rejoinder vehemently submitted that in terms of order of this Tribunal in earlier litigation, the case of the applicant was examined and impugned order has been rightly placed and needs no interference of this Tribunal. It is further submitted that regularization cannot be sought as a matter of right. Ld. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court at by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

Bombay in WP No. 559/2015 and connected writ petitions decided on 29th January, 2026 and submitted that OA is liable to be dismissed.

7. After hearing ld. Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, before considering the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 13th October, 2015 (A/1), it is necessary to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 4th October, 2015 in OA No. 338/2012 which is as follows: “9. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the documents submitted by them. We have also carefully studied the case law and the citations relied upon by both the counsels. The principle issue involved in this OA is whether the applicant is entitled for regularization by the respondents, in view of his employment as a casual labour intermittently from 1988 to 2006.

10. The applicant’s Date of Birth is 25.01.1969. He had studied up to 8th Standard and his date of initial appointment was 27.04.1988, although he has been employed every year from 1988 to 2006 the periodicity of such employment varies from year to year as can be seen from the Table in Para 2. It is noticed that number of days of an employment of the applicant varies from 4 days in 1993 to as many as 270 days in 2003.

11. In the first round of litigation before this Tribunal an order was passed on 02.06.2011 in OA 75/2009 in which the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as per the general instructions by ignoring the condition of sponsorship from Employment Exchange and by giving relaxation in age, is so required in consonance with the provisions of the OM dated 08.04.1991. This Tribunal had also ordered that the case of the applicant is required to be considered for regularization in appropriate Group ‘D’ post by the respondents from the date when his immediate junior was so considered and regularized. The respondents were required to by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order dated 02.06.2011 and the applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits from 18.08.2007,including reinstatement etc. but on notional basis in case the applicant is found fit for regularization as per Rules after such consideration. The Tribunal had also ordered that on his eventual reinstatement, the applicant shall not claim any back-wages or financial benefits for the intervening period. However, in view of the order of this Tribunal dated 02.06.2011 the impediment of educational qualification and age is no longer an issue for consideration of the applicant for regularization. When the above mentioned order of the Tribunal was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the Hon’ble High Court had disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction that after considering the case of the respondents (Applicant in the OA before CAT) for regularization, in case the petitioner (Respondents in the OA before CAT) finds that he does not fulfill the norms and therefore, cannot be regularized, the petitioner was free to make that order. In the second round of litigation before this Tribunal the applicant had filed Contempt Petition No. 69/2011 alleging non compliance of the order by the respondents in OA No. 754/2009. This Tribunal had granted liberty to the applicant to withdraw the CP and test the order dated 06.03.2012 in an appropriate forum. The present OA has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 06.03.2012. The only other issue on which the respondents were to consider the eligibility of the applicant was whether he was qualified by rendering the required number of days of employment before he could be regularized.

12. The matter of regularization of causal labour has been dealt with by the Department of Personnel and Training on a number of occasions by issuing OMs from time to time. Both the applicant and the respondents have relied upon the Office Memoranda issued by the DOPT from time to time and it is necessary to examine the provisions of such Oms to determine the correctness of the action of the respondents in denying regularization to the applicant. Our attention has been drawn to the OM No. 49014/4/77-Estt (c) dated 21.03.1979 which reads as follows: “……. If surplus employees are not available with the DGE&T, the casual employees may be appointed to the posts of Peons borne on the regular establishment which are required to be filled by direct recruitment, subject to the following conditions:-

i) the casual employees should have been engaged through the employment exchange.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

ii) they should posses the experience of a minimum of two years continuous service as casual labour in the office/establishment in which they are to be appointed. The casual employees who have put in at least 240 days as casual labourers (including broken periods of service) during each of the two years of service referred to above shall be eligible to get regularized.

iii) Broken periods of service rendered as casual employees shall be taken into account for purpose of regularization in regular establishment provided that one stretch of service is for more than six months.

iv) They should be eligible in respect of maximum age on the date of regularization. For this purpose, the casual employees may be allowed to deduct from their actual age the period spent by them as casual employees and if after deducting this period, they are within the maximum age limit, they should be considered eligible for regularization.

v) No casual employee shall be considered for appointment on the regular establishment unless he possesses educational qualification prescribed for the post”.

13. The relevant portion of OM No. 49014/5/79-Estt. (C) dated 26.07.1979 is as follows: “Subject: Appointment of casual labour on regular establishment – Relaxation in the age limit – Counting of broken period of service. The undersigned is directed to invite attention of the Ministry of Finance etc. to the MHA Office Memorandum No. 4/9/61- Estt. (D) dated 16.9.1961 on the above subject and to say that a question has been raised whether in the light of the provisions contained in Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 14/1/69-Estt, (C) dated 12.2.69 which stipulate that a casual employee is eligible for regularization if he has put in 240 days of service in a year for two consecutive years, the provisions relating to counting of the broken period of service in one stretch to six months as laid down in the MHA’s OM dated 16.9.61 would still apply for considering eligibility of regularization for casual labour. The matter has been considered and ti has been decided that the time limit of six months is stipulated in the OM dated 16.9.61 need not be insisted upon and if a casual labour has put in 240 days of service in each preceding two years, he may be considered eligible for regularization and may be allowed age relaxation after computing the service as casual employee base don 240

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

days service each year. 2. Ministry of Finance are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned. Sd/ (Miss. S. Trikha) Under Secretary to the Government of India.”

14. The third relevant OM is dated 07.06.1988 which dealt with the procedure for engaging casual workers and determining payment of wages to them and other service conditions. There was only a mention about the regularization of the services of the casual workers stating that it will continue to be governed by the instructions issued by this Department in this regard. While considering such regularization, a casual worker may be given relaxation in the upper age limit only if at the time of initial recruitment as a casual worker, he had not crossed the upper age limit for the relevant post. There was also a stipulation that All the administrative Ministries/Departments should undertake a review of appointment of casual workers in the office under their control on a time-bound basis so that at the end of prescribed period, the following targets are achieved:-

a) All eligible causal workers are adjusted against regular posts to the extent such regular posts are justified.

b) The rest of the casual workers not covered by (a) above and whose retention is considered absolutely necessary and is in accordance with the guidelines, are paid emoluments strictly in accordance with the guidelines.

c) The remaining casual workers not covered by (a) and (b) above are discharged from service.

15. The relevant portion of OM No. 49014/4/90-Estt, (C) dated 08.04.1991 is as follows: “1. ………………..

2. Request have now been received from various Ministries/Departments for allowing relaxation in the conditions of upper age limit and sponsorship through employment exchange for regularization of such casual employees against Group ‘D’ posts, who were recruited prior to 7.6.88, i.e. date of issue of guidelines. The matter has been considered and keeping in view the fact that the casual employees being to the economically weaker section of the society and termination of their services will cause undue hardship to them, it has been decided, as a one time measure, in consultation with the Director General Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour, that casual workers recruited before 7.6.88 and who are in service on the date of issue of these instructions, may be considered by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

for regular appointment to Group ‘D’ posts, in terms of the general instructions, even if they were recruited otherwise than through employment exchange and had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for the post, provided that they are otherwise eligible for regular appointment in all other respect.

3. It is once again reiterated that recruitment of casual workers in Central Government Offices may be regulated strictly in accordance with the guidelines in this Department O.M. No. 49014/2/86-Estt. (C) dated 7.6.88. Cases of neglect of these instructions should be viewed very seriously and brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities for taking prompt and suitable action against the defaulters.:

16. On 11.12.2006 the DOPT had issued another OM following the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) which reads as follows:- “The undersigned is directed to say that the instructions for engagement of casual workers enunciated in this Department’s OM No. 49014/2/86. Estt. (C) dated 7th June, 1988 as amplified from time to time, inter-alia provided that casual workers and persons on daily wages should not be recruited for work of regular nature. They could be engaged only for work of casual or seasonal or intermittent nature, or for work which is not of full time nature for which regular post can not be created. Attention is also invited to this Department’s OM No. 28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated 23rd July 2001, wherein it was provided that no appointment shall be made on ad hoc basis by direct recruitment from open market.

2. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 3595-3612/1999 etc. in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and others has reiterated that any public appointment has to be in terms of the Constitutional schemes. However, the Supreme Court in para 44 of the aforesaid judgement dated 10.4.2006 has directed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure the services of such irregularly appointed, who are duly qualified persons in terms of the statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover or orders of courts or tribunals. The Apex Court has clarified that if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.

3. Accordingly the copy of the above judgment is forwarded to all Ministries/Departments for implementation of the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court.”

17. The claim of the applicant has to be examined in the context of the above mentioned series of Oms issued from time to time by the DOPT. A perusal of the rules laid down in the above OMs clearly shows that the speaking order dated 06.03.2012 has correctly interpreted the non-eligibility of the applicant on the relevant dates on the ground of absence of 240 days of employment in two consecutive years against the backdrops of instructions issued in the OM No. 49014/5/79-Estt. (C) dated 26.07.1979, OM No. 49014/2/86-Estt (C) dated 07.06.1988 and OM No. 49014/4/90-Estt (C) dated 08.04.1991. The applicant had worked for 253 days in 1991 but in all the other years he had worked for less than 240 days but the records do not show whether it was in an office where a 5-days week was observed.

17. The 1993 Scheme as envisaged in OM No. 5106/2/90-Estt (C) dated 10.09.1993 mentioned, “while the existing guidelines contained in OM dated 7.688 may continue to be followed, the grant of temporary status to the causal employees, who are presently employed and have rendered one year of continued service in Central Government Offices other than Deptt. of Telecom, Posts and Railways may be regulated by the scheme as appended.” Since the applicant had worked only for 87 days in 1992 and 04 days in 1993, it cannot be stated that he was in employment or he was “presently employed and had rendered one year of continuous service in Central Government Offices” to be entitled to the benefit of conferment of temporary status and eventual regularization under the 1993 scheme. The OM No. 49019/1/2006-Estt. (C) dated 11.12.2006 in pursuance of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment will not be relevant to the applicant as he had not worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post to be eligible for regularization as a one time measure. It is to be noted that neither the 1993 scheme nor the 2006 scheme was continuous in nature and both were one-time measures. The applicant cannot claim to be in 10 years of service before 2006, since in the year 1997 he had worked for only 24 days, in 1998 for 104 days, in 1999 for 49 days, in 2000 for 79 days and in 2001 for 74 days. In the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 he worked for 140, 270, 266, 241 and 267 days respectively. This does not entitle him to the claim of 10 years of employment, to make him eligible for regularization under the 2006 OM following the Uma Devi judgment (supra).

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

18. Viewed in this context, the case law cited by the applicant will not be applicable in his case. The only issue which remains is whether the artificial break in employment should be taken into account for determining, if the applicant has satisfied the requirement 240/206 working days to be eligible for regularization. The applicant's reliance on Shakuntla Devi (supra) where it has been held by the Principal Bench of CAT, that weekly offs and the holidays must be reckoned for computing number of working days put in by a casual workers is relevant. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also frowned upon the practice of giving so-called technical breaks in their judgment in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Others (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 227. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal had also in Raj Kamal and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1990] 13 ATC 478 [OA No.2306 of 1989) decided on February 16, 1990] directed the Government not to engage fresh casual labourers unless the existing ones were regularized and held that if the applicants were within the age limit at the time of initial engagement as casual labourer, they should be regularized irrespective of their present age. The applicant has relied upon Bhagwati Prasad (supra) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that regularization should be made in phases in accordance with seniority. We are not convinced that the applicant can invoke the principle of seniority, since his sole ground for consideration remains to be compliance with 240 days of employment.

19. The applicant's eligibility for consideration for regularization on the ground of two consecutive years of employment exceeding 240 days can be considered only upto the year 1991 since he is not eligible for consideration in the 1993 scheme and 2006 scheme. The respondents' reliance on Mohan Pal etc. case (supra) and Gagan Kumar case (supra) is relevant in the present case. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have produced records to show whether in the years 1988, 1989 and 1999, he was subjected to artificial breaks and whether holidays and Sundays were calculated for the purpose of determining the number of working days.

20. There is nothing on record to show whether 206 working days in 1990 will make him eligible for consideration, if the office in which he was working was following a 5 days week. We, therefore, hold that, this limited question of artificial breaks, counting of Sundays and Holidays and determining whether the office he was working under was observing a 5 days' week remains to be considered by the respondents.

21. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant in the light of the principles laid down in the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

various OMs of the DOPT and determine the eligibility of the applicant by calculating the number of days for which he has been employed. The question of artificial breaks, counting of Sundays and holidays and whether working under an office which observed 5-days week should be examined afresh. This exercise should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Should the applicant be considered for eligible for employment for regularization, he should be reinstated in service and his seniority should be counted from the date on which his junior got the benefit of regularization. He will however, be not eligible for any back wages.

22. The OA is accordingly disposed with the above directions. All Mas stand disposed. No order as to cost.”

8. In earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal in paragraph no. 19, has categorically observed that the applicants are eligible for consideration of regularization on the ground of two consecutive years of employment exceeding 240 days can be considered only up to the year 1991. Since he is not eligible for consideration in the 1993 scheme and 2006 scheme. On that basis, the directions were issued to the authority as per para 21 of the order.

9. In OA No. 338/2012, in fact the applicant himself has relied on the chart, which discloses the fact that in the year 1988, he has worked 185 days, in 1999 he has worked for 168 days and in 1990, he has worked for 206 days i.e. preceding 3 years of the year 1991.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

10. While filing the reply, the respondents have also placed on record the no. of days worked by the applicant from the year 1988 to 2006 and this chart also shows that the same no. of days’ worked by the applicants in the year 1988 and 1990. However, in filing the rejoinder in para 6, now the applicant is contending that he has worked for more than 240 days in consecutive years during the period from 2002 to 2006.

11. However, once this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in OA No. 338/2012, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization prior to two consecutive years up to year 1991 and therefore, now the claim made by the applicant in respect of taking into account the no. of days from the year 2002 to 2006, is not tenable.

12. At this stage, it is relevant here to take note of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajesh Mohan Dabhale in WP No. 559/2015 relied by the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

learned counsel for the respondents. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to observe as under:

“9. In addition, the Tribunal has also referred to the decision in “Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Uma Devi & Ors,” and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were neither casual labourers as on the cut-off date fixed in the Office Memorandum dated 7th June

or Office Memorandum dated 10th September 1993 nor entitled for regularization. As to Office Memorandum dated 7th June 1988, it was observed in “Union of India & Anr. v. Mohan Pal” that a grant of temporary status to a casual employee in the departments of the Government of India shall be on the basis of the employment of the casual employees on the commencement of the date of the scheme. In “Union of India v. Gagan Kumar” it was further observed that the said scheme was not in the nature of general guidelines to be applied for giving temporary status to all casual labourers as and when they completed one year of continuous service. The petitioners are admittedly appointed as Casual Labourers in the year 1995 and were thus not covered under the aforementioned Office Memorandums. The Tribunal while declining the claim for temporary status and regularization has however taken note of the long years of service of the petitioners and issued a direction to the respondent-authority to consider continuance of the engagement of the petitioners in any appropriate capacity subject to requirement of the department until the government comes up with a new scheme for regularization of Casual Labourers. In the aforementioned facts and scenario, the exercise of powers by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction to the respondent-authority to by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

confer temporary status to the petitioners shall be contrary to the settled principles of law. The writ Court cannot issue a direction contrary to the applicable statutory provisions or the scheme for regularization. The decision taken in these petitions by this Court in favour of the petitioners shall not be in the larger public interest.”

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference by this Tribunal in the present original application and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

14. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to cost.

(Umesh Gajankush)

(Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) (sadish)

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR